Simon (2009) points out something I think we (or at least I) have not looked at - "different theories allow us to work on a different set of problems or work on the same problem differently" (p. 483). We have compared and contrasted various theories (such as the recent situated versus sociocultural theories). My question is this: what are the advantages and disadvantages of using each of the theories we have read about so far? Ultimately, this seems to me to be where we are heading (for a dissertation we have to know how to decide on what theory to use, as well as explain why we are using a particular theory. (JE, 3/22)
I will add to the above question in asking: How Sfard's (1998) notion of two contrasting metaphors (acquisition and participatory) can help (or hinder) the answering of my original question? (JE, 3/22)
These articles supported the fact that more than one theory of learning is needed at any point in time to provide adequate explanations for observation, but fails to look critically at each theory and identify aspects that cannot be helpful. Does this mean what is not helpful today may be useful tomorrow? Can we look at the strengths and weaknesses of each to have a better understanding? (NA).
What are some of the challenges that teachers and researchers may face in applying this suggestions of using more that more theory of learning? Of course any combination will have its strengths and constraints and will not completely solve the problem? (NA)
Simon (2009) uses the notion of a worldview to articulate the importance of separating beliefs from theory (p. 481). However, Kieran (1994) seems to write about 'theory' in a more loose way, and often discusses how certain theoretical perspectives are intimately connected to opinions, beliefs, views, voices, or attractions. What would an expert theoretician have to say on this matter? Do any of your experiences in methods classes resonate with this 'issue'? (NF, 3/22)
In the context of problem solving, Kieran (1994) cites Kulm (1997) to help delineate the issue of discovery versus heuristic (see p. 594). The discussion did not help to make this distinction clear to me. (NF, 3/22)
Is autonomy a significant construct for psychological constructivism, or does it only make sense from an interactionist perspective (see Cobb and Yackel, 1996, p. 179, for instance)? (NF, 3/22).
Referring to the Sfard article, I am interested in the idea of combining the two metaphors for learning. I agree with Sfard's statement that the two are not "mutually exclusive" from page 6, but how can we effectively and practically combine the two in our classrooms? How can we work with pre-service teachers to help them identify an effective metaphor for their own classrooms? CZ 3/22
My question is actually related to Cristina's (above)- is it valid to say that teachers' own metaphors of learning inform their choice of activities in class? (JH, 3/23)
Reading about Simon (2009) made me wonder, is it possible to adopt a sociocultural perspective in a case study involving only one subject? How? (JH 3/24)
I wonder if we can once again make explicit the reasons that we have not explored behaviorism. I understand, of course, that a focus on behaviorism led to the "back to basics" movement and that the results of that movement were quite negative. It sometimes seems, though, that behaviorism is a theory that we feel cognitive theory has superseded. Have we "moved beyond" behaviorism, or is it simply incommensurable with the theories we have read? (RK, 3/23)
I felt Cobb's example of a study in which a sociocultural perspective was more appropriate than the emergent perspective helped to shed quite a bit of light on the differences between the sociocultural and emergent perspectives. If different theories of learning are taken as incommensurable, something we may want to do before the end of class is to create some kind of organizational scheme for them, elucidating the affordances and (for lack of a better word) weaknesses of each theory. Perhaps this scheme could include exemplary studies. In doing so, it may be smart for us to include behaviorism in the scheme in order to make explicit its affordances and its weaknesses. (RK, 3/23)
Sometimes I feel as though I've become mired in philosophical debate. Something I'd like to do some time is get out the chapter from "Adding It Up" on the strands of mathematical proficiency and see if it looks different from different perspectives. In other words, are the strands invariant under changes of perspective or do they change in subtle ways? Take for example, the strands of "procedural fluency" and "productive disposition." If these are constructs of interest for a study, what will shifting between perspectives afford? (RK, 3/23)
In continuing or building on Rob's first question, what is the underlying metaphor for behaviorism (I suspect it to be Acquisition)? Are there other metaphors present that we should think about, or is Participatory vs. Acquisition the only two choices we have as a metaphor? I would like (on one of our Monday meetings) to sort out the various theoretical viewpoints by metaphor. I have an idea in my head, but would like to see if it agrees with everyone else's, or if I am just assuming it to be "taken as shared." :-) (JDS 3/23).
I will add to the above question in asking: How Sfard's (1998) notion of two contrasting metaphors (acquisition and participatory) can help (or hinder) the answering of my original question? (JE, 3/22)
These articles supported the fact that more than one theory of learning is needed at any point in time to provide adequate explanations for observation, but fails to look critically at each theory and identify aspects that cannot be helpful. Does this mean what is not helpful today may be useful tomorrow? Can we look at the strengths and weaknesses of each to have a better understanding? (NA).
What are some of the challenges that teachers and researchers may face in applying this suggestions of using more that more theory of learning? Of course any combination will have its strengths and constraints and will not completely solve the problem? (NA)
Simon (2009) uses the notion of a worldview to articulate the importance of separating beliefs from theory (p. 481). However, Kieran (1994) seems to write about 'theory' in a more loose way, and often discusses how certain theoretical perspectives are intimately connected to opinions, beliefs, views, voices, or attractions. What would an expert theoretician have to say on this matter? Do any of your experiences in methods classes resonate with this 'issue'? (NF, 3/22)
In the context of problem solving, Kieran (1994) cites Kulm (1997) to help delineate the issue of discovery versus heuristic (see p. 594). The discussion did not help to make this distinction clear to me. (NF, 3/22)
Is autonomy a significant construct for psychological constructivism, or does it only make sense from an interactionist perspective (see Cobb and Yackel, 1996, p. 179, for instance)? (NF, 3/22).
Referring to the Sfard article, I am interested in the idea of combining the two metaphors for learning. I agree with Sfard's statement that the two are not "mutually exclusive" from page 6, but how can we effectively and practically combine the two in our classrooms? How can we work with pre-service teachers to help them identify an effective metaphor for their own classrooms? CZ 3/22
My question is actually related to Cristina's (above)- is it valid to say that teachers' own metaphors of learning inform their choice of activities in class? (JH, 3/23)
Reading about Simon (2009) made me wonder, is it possible to adopt a sociocultural perspective in a case study involving only one subject? How? (JH 3/24)
I wonder if we can once again make explicit the reasons that we have not explored behaviorism. I understand, of course, that a focus on behaviorism led to the "back to basics" movement and that the results of that movement were quite negative. It sometimes seems, though, that behaviorism is a theory that we feel cognitive theory has superseded. Have we "moved beyond" behaviorism, or is it simply incommensurable with the theories we have read? (RK, 3/23)
I felt Cobb's example of a study in which a sociocultural perspective was more appropriate than the emergent perspective helped to shed quite a bit of light on the differences between the sociocultural and emergent perspectives. If different theories of learning are taken as incommensurable, something we may want to do before the end of class is to create some kind of organizational scheme for them, elucidating the affordances and (for lack of a better word) weaknesses of each theory. Perhaps this scheme could include exemplary studies. In doing so, it may be smart for us to include behaviorism in the scheme in order to make explicit its affordances and its weaknesses. (RK, 3/23)
Sometimes I feel as though I've become mired in philosophical debate. Something I'd like to do some time is get out the chapter from "Adding It Up" on the strands of mathematical proficiency and see if it looks different from different perspectives. In other words, are the strands invariant under changes of perspective or do they change in subtle ways? Take for example, the strands of "procedural fluency" and "productive disposition." If these are constructs of interest for a study, what will shifting between perspectives afford? (RK, 3/23)
In continuing or building on Rob's first question, what is the underlying metaphor for behaviorism (I suspect it to be Acquisition)? Are there other metaphors present that we should think about, or is Participatory vs. Acquisition the only two choices we have as a metaphor? I would like (on one of our Monday meetings) to sort out the various theoretical viewpoints by metaphor. I have an idea in my head, but would like to see if it agrees with everyone else's, or if I am just assuming it to be "taken as shared." :-) (JDS 3/23).